omg SEX! It's a dirty word, and that's part of the problem; silly taboos on widespread experiences.
These two figures are the most recent productions for my thesis. Here I am attempting to tackle the role of sexuality in gender construction. It has turned into a challenge to define sexuality and understand how it is constructed. Basically so far I've decided, sexuality is a created response to an object of attraction. Nature chooses the object of attraction; society teaches us our response. That response is an enormous part of how we navigate gender. It would make sense then that gender as we currently define it, being either a man or woman, is too narrow.
For me, sexuality is a very calculated projection, with both passive and aggressive qualities. Basically, sexuality is very much about power; who has power, who wants power what gives power, and how that power is acted out. Now it is also about concepts of desire, but if everyone wants to be desired, then there is power in who decides what(or who) is desirable.
These figures are particular demonstrations about my experience with sexuality and about women's sexuality in Western society. They also bring up issues about children's sexuality and how we educate them, which is another beast I have not yet begun to tackle.
These ideas are much more complicated than that, I know, and really I could go on about them for a while. However, I'm very clearly still working through them, so I won't. Dialogue is absolutely appreciated though.
Just a note- the female figure is half life-sized. The child is the same size, but of course that means a different scale.
I received a thought provoking critique from my thesis class, and I, of course, couldn't leave them alone afterwards, so each figure has been tweaked since the photos. I know most artists prefer critiques of finished work, but at this point in my career, green critiques seem much more helpful because I can change things or work out problems without having to rebuild the figure entirely. Now these ladies are tented for the winter break, ready to be fired upon our return for the spring semester.
On the technical side, I've had some problems with slumping, and I've decided I'm not entirely satisfied with the glaze I've been using. I'm going to be experimenting with bisquing high, glazing low, and some new glaze recipes with these figures.
New year, new adventures, hopefully better results and better luck.
4 comments:
An interesting take on gender/sexuality. It'll be interesting to see what you actually do come up with in the end of all this thesis business.
However, one thing I notice that is glaringly missing is a matter of religion. As a student of Christian Theology, I feel compelled to ask this question, even though it may not be one you are going to consider.
At first glance, one would consider response to the initial attraction to be something that is socially driven, but is it really? For example, Christians all around the world have varying views regarding sexuality and how to engage it. Are they socialized into having those views? I don't know if I necessarily buy into society being the driving force as to what drives what you call the response to attraction.
Using your definition of sexuality being about desire and power, it would seem that the force that can control desire wields an enormous amount of power. I wonder where religion fits into all of this then. Organized religion doesn't really tell you who/what is desirable (other than the obvious, but I don't want to tackle that). I'm looking are the more nuanced question of how does religion determine what is desirable within those bounds?
Maybe I'm out to lunch on this one, and I haven't really spent much time thinking about the topic (maybe I should audit the class they offer at Messiah..), but it might be something you want to consider.
Couz, I'm so glad you talk to me. I love when people start dialogues.
Think about it like this: Because you grew up in white Protestant, 21st century USA, when you feel a pinch, you say "ow." If you grew up in another environment and felt the same pain, you might have learned to say something else like "eek" or "bah" or even to say nothing at all.
That is pretty simplistic, but in the same way, you feel physical attraction, but how you respond to it is dictated by social norms you learned.
Another example might be this; when we in the USA are attracted to some one, we kiss them. However in most tribes in Africa, kissing is unheard of as an appropriate sign of affection. Kissing, as composed response to a base attraction, is taught by society.
Ever little behavior and nuance of how we act as a man or a woman to attract whomever we desire is taught to us in a similar way by the images and behaviors of people(society) around us.
You're exactly right the force that dictates who is desirable controls an enormous amount of power...Look at the resistance that still exists today to equal rights movements and feminist movements. Religion has a big part in the power play for too many reasons to list, and religion is something that I think a lot about in my thesis because it is a ruling institution that is subscribed to by most people on this planet.
By the simple fact that organized religion tells you what is wrong and what is right, and who to label sinner and who to label holy, it is telling you who is desirable. Within those bounds, people are still people. They want to be desired, and they want to be accepted. What your religion says about what is good more likely than not has a lot in common with what people you desire and how you think it is appropriate to act in regard the object of your desire.
Being raised in the Christian church, I know that there are hierarchies of power and desirables within the "obvious" bounds. For example, when I was a conservative Christian, I never would have considered a person who smoked or drank or had tattoos, because that was not godly or caring for your body like a temple of God. Now that my views have grown separately from the Church, so has the type of people I am attracted to changed (except that I still am not big on smokers. that's a hygiene thing. lol).
Does that answer your questions? I really want to hear how you answer them.
What exactly does organized religion tell you about who is desirable and who isn't?
If people are not socialized into their particular views, then how do they come to those views?
(referring to your comments around "Christians all around the world have varying views regarding sexuality and how to engage it...")
Now that I think about it a little more, while I'm a student of Christian Theology, I'm a terrible example of it.
For example, if I feel a significant pinch, I would probably be inclined to drop some sort of four letter word that other Christians wouldn't like to hear me say (small pinches don't get a response). Also, the things you mentioned (tattoos, smoking, etc), are not things I dislike because the church dislikes them, but because I dislike them. What does the Bible say about them? Well, for example, many "actors" in the Bible would drink alcohol, in moderation of course, but they didn't shut off the tap as many Christians today would have them do (Messiah College being a fine example of this).
Now, I don't want to make myself look like a heathen because I very much buy into the Bible, God, Jesus, salvation, redemption but the way I engage it isn't the way most Christians engage it.
Sure, the Bible does list things that are "sinful" but the trouble is that people have corrupted that into something that it's not. And ultimately, the organization that is religion as a whole has largely corrupted it as well. They've turned religion into a system. A legal business where the whole message of Jesus is lost.
What does religion tell me about desire? Well, it doesn't really tell me anything about who I should desire because I reject the notion that people should be rated by anything other than the fact that they are images made in the likeness of God. How to handle those desires though, religion does play a part.
How do I explain this...
I guess I want to say that I operate under the religion's "rules" because I want to, not because the religion tells me to. I don't lust after women because 1. Jesus would not have me do that and I try my hardest to be like Him and 2. That's just wrong period. So, I have two reasons (the first of which is more important to me than the latter, but the latter is important too), for believing the way I do; one that appeals to Christians, and one that appeals to Christians and non-Christians.
The balance I'm trying to strike here is that while Christianity may be my modus operandi, I think that I can engage my Christianity in such a manner that it doesn't appeal to Christians alone.
Now, what do I mean by engaging sexuality? Christians all over the world engage sexuality and desire in different ways. Some just bottle it up and throw it away. Some engage it fully in order to understand how their Christianity works with their sexuality. These people are not socialized into how to deal with desire. Sure, society informs them of their choices, but ultimately, they decide for themselves how to manage their views. As far as I'm concerned, if a Christian answers questions with "because my religion tells me to" not "because the Bible tells me so", they need to re-examine what their religion means to them. Jesus wasn't about organized religion, any many Christians seem to forget that; and most non-Christians don't see that.
Now that I read over this, I see one glaring omission - or something that I should at least mention. The simple matter is that American Christianity is largely like this. Christianity in other places in the world is not like this. So, in other places in the world where oppression is happening, it is not because of Christianity specifically.
Beyond Christianity though, one thing I've come to realize very clearly is that people will divide themselves. They will use things like religion to do it, but people by nature divide things and divide themselves. Maybe God created us this way or maybe its the perversion of sin; but I think that this desire to divide is evident in everything that we do.
I think I rambled there a little, but I hope I answered your questions. You know where to find me if I didn't.
Maybe my pinch example was too simplistic. My point is simply that a person's response to a physical event/stimuli is generally a socially taught response.
I know Christianity is a big part of your social experience, but let's be clear: I'm not trying to argue a Christian/non-Christian situation. What I'm talking about is people living in communities with other people and the behaviors that organize that group of people. Society is much more than religion. The prevalent religion in a region has a lot to do with the behaviors that society endorses, but it does not encompass all of society. You have to consider history, location, wealth, resources, technology, media, family structure, government, etc.
So your expletives uttered when feeling pain, while they may not please the Church, are still a socialized response. I argue they are a socialized response because if you grew up in another society, they wouldn't be the same expletives. For example: if you were in Brazil, it would probably be some Portugese expletives. Language is part of how we are socialized, just like location is part of it too. I would be willing to bet that if you grew up in a different English-speaking country, you still wouldn't say all the same curse words.
When I say socialized responses, I'm talking the nitty gritty, the base from which our actions come. So you're right, a person can choose to bottle up her sexuality or she might embrace it. What I'm saying is that how she acts in response to that choice depends on how her society has taught her to act. Even simpler: the fact that she can make that choice is related to the society she's in. I can dissect my sexuality all I want, and I can choose to embrace it or bottle it, but a woman in an arranged marriage in another country doesn't have that luxury.
I would challenge you to think very honestly about how much of your being Christian is an absolutely sovereign choice. Think honestly about if you actually came to your value system separately from the white Protestant region you came from.
Example: Do you think if you were born to a family that practices Hinduism in the middle of India that you'd feel the same about tattoos?
I don't think it's a coincidence that people living in a particular region share similar views. Sure, there are anomalies within that, which maybe some of your particular views are, because society is made up of individuals with individual brains. If you grow up in a certain society, then you consciously and unconsciously learn those certain social norms, which play heavily into your actions, whether you are aware of it or not.
Post a Comment